Whilst it is not a requirement to respond to that letter, I suggest you do with the following by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:
Your Ref: CARFLOW/28
Dear Sirs,
Re: Carflow Ltd v [Your Name] – County Court Claim No. [insert number]
I write in response to your letter dated 28 May 2025.
I note your position but stand fully by my Defence. The Particulars of Claim remain non-compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and are materially indistinguishable from those struck out in CEL v Chan [2023] and CPMS v Akande [2024], which are persuasive authorities directly relevant to this claim.
In the interests of saving court time and avoiding unnecessary cost to either party, I make an open offer: that this claim be discontinued with no order as to costs – a standard drop hands resolution.
This offer is made on an open basis and may be shown to the court on the issue of conduct and costs. If your client unreasonably refuses this opportunity and the claim is struck out or fails, I will rely on this letter in support of an application for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and the White Book annotation at 38.6.1, which confirms that unreasonable behaviour can justify a costs order even on the small claims track.
I also refer you to the Upper Tribunal’s comments in Willow Court Management Company (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 0290 (LC) (https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2016/290.pdf), where it was confirmed that:
“The fact that the conduct complained of takes place in proceedings allocated to the small claims track does not mean that it cannot be unreasonable. A party who behaves unreasonably can expect to bear the costs of that unreasonable behaviour.”
If I do not receive confirmation of acceptance within 14 days, this offer will be deemed rejected and withdrawn.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Regarding their copy of their N180 DQ, just follow this advice:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
If you've not responded, then it is still with the CNBC. Call them as early as possible on 0300 123 1056.
Ask to speak to someone about a claim issued against you where you do not have the claim number. Be prepared to provide:
• Your full name
• Your full current address
• Possibly your date of birth (to help distinguish you from others with the same name)
They will not give details unless they can identify you confidently.
However, you must understand that by not having the claim number you are now delaying getting your defence registered for another day. I cannot stress how badly you've been advised by these nutcases and you are now at very serious risk of getting a CCJ by default!
As you never even opened the Claim, you do not have access to MCOL to do it online today. This is a SNAFU that could go FUBAR very easily.
Without seeing the actual PoC, it is difficult to advise precisely. However, as you have very limited time to get this done and do't have access to MCOL, the only way you can do anything is to email your defence to the CNBC today. It won't even be dealt with until some time eon Tuesday, if you're lucky, and you have to hope that Moorside Legal don't request a default CCJ before the defence is entered into the system.
As it is the incompetents at Moorside Legal that have filed the claim, I am fairly confident that they will not have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) so you need to follow these instructions:
Here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you send all the documents as a single PDF attachment (in the order of 'defence', 'draft order' and then the 2 'transcripts') in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Carflow Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Carflow Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0)
CEL v Chan Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0)
If you want an editable MS Word file with everything in a single document which you can then save/export as a single PDF file when ready to send, use this:
MS Word .docx file for defence [CPR 16.4(1)(a)] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/krubcbnf27bsis66pq4yg/Short-defence-strikeout-CPR16.4-1-a-3.docx?rlkey=z87f3h8is3hgnp7sqr8plsz99&st=ldawlubu&dl=0)